Comments on: Wine Economist Top 100https://wineeconomist.com/2009/02/22/wine-economist-top-100/
Wed, 06 Dec 2017 04:58:53 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: David Boyerhttps://wineeconomist.com/2009/02/22/wine-economist-top-100/#comment-285
Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:33:09 +0000http://wineeconomist.com/?p=499#comment-285I would like to be able to say that the misspelling of my own website was due to drinking a great glass (or more) of wine but the truth is, I am just unskilled as a typist. The correction is:

Congratulations on cranking out your 100th post! For me, this is one of the few wine blogs that actually has something important to say, and along with being filled with thought-provoking subjects, it’s also well written and researched.

The subject matter before us presently makes some very poignant observations regarding a hot-button topic for me. Of course the Top Anything is not new. One of the products of the Top Anything that immediately comes to mind is the Top 40 from the record biz (back when there was such a thing), which originated in the early 1950s and was formulated as “Top 40” because jukeboxes held 40 records (if you’re not sure what the terms “record” or “jukebox” mean, ask your grandparents). At least for formulating this list, there was objective data to rely on that drove this phenomenon – sales.

Not unlike the Classification of 1855 in Bordeaux, that controversial document is similar to a Top 40 record chart. The extremely important Classification of 1855 was essentially based on sales, price and popularity of Bordeaux wines in those days. Was it somewhat subjective? Sure, but at least it had some semblance of credibility based on price and the rate of sell-through. This is important because in nearly every market of the US, the value of anything boils down to this: what price a seller is willing to sell for and what price a buyer is willing to buy for. When the two meet – voila! We have a deal and this becomes the most pure definition of true market value. The 1855 document has withstood the test of time very well based on market value and has much relevance and validity still today.

Ranking wine into a list of nearly any length, I would suggest, is a highly political and volatile process. I wouldn’t want to do it. The Bordeaux region alone produces nearly 10,000 wines (labels) each year. Just like in 1855, the Top Anything is designed to pique the interest of the public in order to sell more product. Wine is no different and thus wine critics and publications are almost obligated to create this hyperbole for their faithful supporters. For serious enophiles, this is implicitly understood and ignored, and for those that are newbies or wannbes, it is actually useful guidance.

And this guidance brings me to wine scores. Even when I consider the wine collectors I know whose cellars easily run into seven figures (post crash, not including cents), I know of absolutely not one of them that can reasonably sample and evaluate 10,000 – 15,000 different wines each year. It is a physical impossibility by my measure, not to mention very expensive. So where does anyone turn to that wants some probability of obtaining reliable information? Of course wine critics, professional tasters, and wine publications. The scoring is indeed very flawed and the bandwidth of useable scores is very small but it is still better than nothing. The key to finding these scores useful is having the ability to align our expectations, based our own experience of how each reviewer we subject ourselves to, evaluates wine.

Some critics I find too liberal for my tastes, others I find conservative so when he or she scores a wine at 90 + points (or at 18 points), I am almost always assured that it will meet my expectations. Others yet, are hit and miss and therefore not generally useful to me. My point is that, if you find a kindred spirit critic in the wine world, go with it, because these men and women will taste exponentially more wine than we will during the course of a year, and it will save us a lot of disappointment and expense to let them be the guinea pigs. That’s what we pay for with our subscription money.

I think however, the ‘winner-take-all’ concept may be flawed when it comes to wine. I do think it may be valid when it comes to vacuum cleaners and such. Wine, beer, liquor and any other alcoholic beverage are all really luxuries. Unless you’re in a 12 step, we don’t really need this liquid to exist; food and water are much more important for sustenance. So the barrier to winner-take-all is the price. If Château Haut Brion wins Wine of the Year, few people will run out and buy it based on that designation (too expensive for many). If you have ever tasted a 100 point Bordeaux or Burgundy or 100 point anything, you understand that what Frank refers to as the “charm premium” does not apply to wine (notwithstanding the fact that there are wine buyers who buy into bragging rights, to which the “charm premium” does indeed apply). Rather in fact I would say the beneficiaries of the Top 100 are more the guys like Ted Seghesio, whose fabulous Zin last year, landed within Spectators Top 10. And further down the Top Whatever list are profoundly grateful winemakers and estates that probably and for the most part, deserve to be there.

Honestly, if you listen to the Top 40 list of songs for any given year, it is really difficult (but not impossible) to argue with the charts most of the time. You can’t tell me that Aretha Franklin or the Doobie Brothers or Sting didn’t deserve to be in the Top Ten.

I hope you uncorked a favorite bottle to celebrate your grand accomplishment Mike.